The SRA Symposium - College of Medicine

Helpful Gatekeepers:
Positive Management of the Limited Submission Process
Robert Porter, PhD
Program Development Manager
Research Division
Virginia Tech
340 Burruss Hall
Blacksburg VA 24061
Ph: (540) 231-6747
E-mail: reporter@vt.edu.
Abstract
Limited submission grant programs force a sensitive gatekeeper role squarely on research administration.
By limiting the number of proposals that an institution may submit in response to a
program announcement, sponsors (both governmental and private) are, in effect, pushing down to
the universities the initial triage of competitive vs. non-competitive grant proposals, thus reducing
their own workloads to a considerable degree. At the other end, research administrators can view
this role either as an onerous but necessary task, or they can seize opportunities for constructive
communications, proposal improvements, and faculty development. This paper describes a process
at Virginia Tech that aims at the latter approach, using ten rules for managing limited submission
programs.
Introduction
With sponsor budgets flattening as universities ramp up their research agendas, intensified competition
has become the norm. In 2003 NSF underwent a near budget freeze, while the number of
proposals increased 14 per cent, thus lowering their average success rate from 25 to 20 percent in
one year (NSF 2004). Similarly, universities are witnessing an increasing number of limited submission
grant programs with more internal candidates competing for each opportunity. In January
of 2005, for example, the research office at Virginia Tech posted twelve programs on its limited
submission calendar for the month, one of which had eleven research teams vying for a single
slot! In this environment, research administration is under heightened pressure to manage limited
submissions in a manner that is perceived as fair by all constituencies. The following are ten rules
for implementing a positive management philosophy in this sensitive arena.
Ten rules for positive management
As a grounding principle, the entire limited submission process should mirror, as closely as possible,
the best qualities of the peer review system now in place with most major sponsors, a system
that continues to get high marks from most researchers (NIH 2001).
Rule 1: Cast a broad net
Papers
Limited submissions have always presented management challenges, the first being the difficulty
in flagging them accurately and in a timely fashion. Recurring programs such as NSF’s Major
Research Instrumentation (MRI) or American Honda’s Grants in Scientific Education, present
few difficulties. But, like wayward meteorites, new limited submissions can swoop into view with
precious little warning. Online database services such as Community of Science and InfoED can
be programmed to issue alerts, but their performance with new programs can be spotty. Likewise,
researchers who become aware of a new limited submission may or may not choose bring it to the
2005 Symposium Proceedings Book 215